[OFB Cafe] Xeon Comparions

[Timothy Butler]

> I can't point to any hard evidence, but the older chips are likely
> P4/Netburst (not sure if that's even the correct microarchitecture
> codename) and the newer chip is likely a branch of the Core  
> architecture.

	Yes, that seems to be right on. I did some serious digging and found  
that the Xeon 2.8 GHz was a Netburst processor with 400 MHz bus and  
2mb L3 cache. The 3040 1.86 GHz is Core-based, has 2mb L2 and a 1066  
MHz bus.

> There's also the issue of "peripherals" - memory controller, PCI vs
> PCIe, etc - the newer chip likely has more up-to-date support  
> components
>  and should reduce some of the bottlenecks the older chips will be  
> more
> or less stuck with.

	Good points. The older chip also came in a system with PATA vs. SATA.

	It's via a datacenter server lease, so I don't have a big worry  
component costs, but I settled on the 3040. I originally planned to go  
with the 3040, but the 2.8 GHz was on sale, and I thought, "well, for  
about the same price, which is the better choice?" Hopefully going  
with the newer architecture will make up for being a slower clock.  
Based on what you say, which sounds like a familiar calculation, the  
1.86 GHz clock should be just about as good, right? It works out  
neatly to 2/3 of the clock speed...

	Thanks for the advice.

	-Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window- 
panes,
Editor, OfB.biz   | The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the  
window-panes
tbutler at ofb.biz   | Licked  its  tongue  into the  corners  of  the   
evening,
timothybutler.us  | Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains."
                                                                 --  
T.S. Eliot